3 ms·

This comment seems to imply that radicalism can be measured by use of atonality and chromaticism. Which makes sense in some ways, but I can't help but observe t

This comment seems to imply that radicalism can be measured by use of atonality and chromaticism. Which makes sense in some ways, but I can't help but observe that these forms of "radicalism" have dominated highbrow "classical" music for the last century, and have come to feel conventional and often boring.

InCityDreams 4y ago
Oh, how the times they are a-changin'.
autarch 4y ago
I think atonality (via serialism) fell out of fashion in the 80s or 90s. For the last few decades the most-played living composers seem to be writing neoromantic and minimalist music. This makes sense, since those are much more listenable than serialism. That doesn't mean there are no atonal bits in the music, but you also hear a lot of actual melodies and strong rhythmic bits.
- civilized 4y ago
  This reminds me of Joe Hisaishi and his soundtracks for Studio Ghibli movies. He's the big guy right now as far as I'm concerned.
  - autarch 4y ago
    Hisaishi is one of my all-time favorite film composers. I think his style mixes neoromantic with a lot of early modern French influence like Debussy and Ravel. He also has some strong jazz influences and I think there are aspects of his music that reflect Japanese folk music too.
tgv 4y ago
Atonality was a radical departure. Impressionism was quite radical, too. And minimalism. But although Rachmaninov was "up to date", he almost didn't leave the established path. He wrote great melodies and the harmony, orchestration and runs are wonderful, but it's not radical. That's not bad, IMO. Radicalism as such is overrated. It's throws out the baby with the bathwater. It may come with great ideas, but it often also is a power grab, an attempt to overthrow the elite and establish a new one, which may have a different "language" or style, but still has an old-fashioned power structure. There will be a top, there will be some good works, but the lesser artists don't magically improve: they were there before the new movement, and they will there there after. And (all this IMO, of course) they were what made chromaticism and atonality so boring. The other day, I listened to Christian Sinding's 3rd symphony. I thought it was a bit bland but ok for 1870, but it turned out to have been written 50 years later. Still, since it's tonal, it's accessible, and there will be people who enjoy it. But a composer of similar caliber in a later age, forcing him/herself to write in some serial technique, will sadly produce something we'd rather forget. TLDR: I like Rach, and I'm not fond of radicalism for its own sake.

InCityDreams 4y ago

Oh, how the times they are a-changin'.

autarch 4y ago

I think atonality (via serialism) fell out of fashion in the 80s or 90s. For the last few decades the most-played living composers seem to be writing neoromantic and minimalist music. This makes sense, since those are much more listenable than serialism. That doesn't mean there are no atonal bits in the music, but you also hear a lot of actual melodies and strong rhythmic bits.

civilized 4y ago
This reminds me of Joe Hisaishi and his soundtracks for Studio Ghibli movies. He's the big guy right now as far as I'm concerned.
- autarch 4y ago
  Hisaishi is one of my all-time favorite film composers. I think his style mixes neoromantic with a lot of early modern French influence like Debussy and Ravel. He also has some strong jazz influences and I think there are aspects of his music that reflect Japanese folk music too.

tgv 4y ago

Atonality was a radical departure. Impressionism was quite radical, too. And minimalism. But although Rachmaninov was "up to date", he almost didn't leave the established path. He wrote great melodies and the harmony, orchestration and runs are wonderful, but it's not radical. That's not bad, IMO. Radicalism as such is overrated. It's throws out the baby with the bathwater. It may come with great ideas, but it often also is a power grab, an attempt to overthrow the elite and establish a new one, which may have a different "language" or style, but still has an old-fashioned power structure. There will be a top, there will be some good works, but the lesser artists don't magically improve: they were there before the new movement, and they will there there after. And (all this IMO, of course) they were what made chromaticism and atonality so boring. The other day, I listened to Christian Sinding's 3rd symphony. I thought it was a bit bland but ok for 1870, but it turned out to have been written 50 years later. Still, since it's tonal, it's accessible, and there will be people who enjoy it. But a composer of similar caliber in a later age, forcing him/herself to write in some serial technique, will sadly produce something we'd rather forget. TLDR: I like Rach, and I'm not fond of radicalism for its own sake.